Here there be rants. There will be Freeman stuff, Lawful Rebellion stuff and Random stuff. I am rebelling because I want my country back. My lawful obligations are as follows: “together with the community of the whole realm, distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until redress has been obtained as they see fit…”
Article 61 Magna Carta 1215

October 31, 2010

In it, he explores the idea of secession. It appeals to me because we either need to tame the beast, or escape the beast. This intelligent young man shows us how we can do both and remain in the land of our fathers.

I would welcome your thoughts on this.

Anarchyland asks if I, Captain Hieronymus J. Ranty III (Ret'd) started the anarchy ball rolling. I think not. I have been banging on that drum for the last couple of months but I would never claim credit. The Libertarians beat me toit by years, and there must be an "official" Anarchy Movement out there somewhere.

My lifetime chronology, for those interested, goes something like this:

Age 0-16-idiot

Age 16-18-drunken idiot

Age 18-25-serviceman and drunken idiot

Age 25-28-made and lost £1M. Idiocy and drinking involved.

Age 28-38-an offshore idiot. Drank my way around the world.

Age 38-44-an onshore idiot. More travelling, more drinking.

Age 44-48-Wising up period. Studying and researching like a man demented. Still likes a drink.

If I have educated anyone, inspired anyone, annoyed anyone (in government), or spurred anyone to do the same then I am proud of that. I do not think I am a Pathfinder, not really, nor do I think that I have started a new trend. I'm simply doing some unconventional stuff and letting you guys know how it is all panning out.

Please do go and visit. They have a team of brilliant researchers and writers. Their subjects vary, they are sometimes scary, so please be wary. It does not always make for comfortable reading but I can personally vouch for their investigative methods. Good people doing good work. Exposing TPTB, and they are doing a damn fine job of it.

This article is dear to all my readers here, and I believe it deserves more airtime. You will have seen various posts on the blogosphere but this one, written by John, has some additional details. Read and learn. When John wins on Friday, we will all need this stuff for our own court cases!

Take it away, Maestro.

John Hurst

"For those who wonder what they can do as individuals to resist encroachment on their common law rights, withholding Council Tax (CT) is a lawful option. It is also, as I will show below, a legal obligation. I would not wish to encourage anyone to cause problems for the state without justification. The Powers That Be, for reasons which we can only speculate about, repealed the statutory offence of sedition early in 2010 so perhaps I can speak freely.

A bit of background first. For those of us who are old enough to remember Mrs Thatcher (who was Prime Minister in the late 1980’s) will know that she had a bit of a problem with a Poll Tax which was levied on all adults to fund local authorities. This did not go down well and resulted in one of the biggest incidents of disorder in central London for many years. It was not officially a riot. The Metropolitan Police never admit that a riot has occurred because they will be financially liable, by the way.

Why withhold Council Tax? Because it is one of the few taxes which an individual is required to pay in person and is not deducted by his, or her, employer. It is a Poll Tax because it applies to everyone’s residence, even if they do not own it.

What will happen if you refuse to pay? If the outstanding sum is less that £750, not very much. After two or three months your local Council will withdraw the option of paying in instalments. After another two or three months they will threaten to take you to Magistrates Court to obtain a “liability order” which will add £90.00, (£50.00 for the issue of the summons, and £40.00 for the issue of the liability order) and give the Council the power to take money directly from your earnings, Income Support or Job Seekers Allowance. That will take at least a month.

More serious methods of obtaining the money, such as threatening bankruptcy, are not available to them if the outstanding sum is less that £750.

Let’s do the sums. I understand that the average Council Tax bill is £1200 over 10 months. That is £100 per month. A person could withhold payments from the 5th month into the financial year and then pay up at month 10 before any sanctions are applied except the £90 costs. If a few people do that, the tyranny will not be inconvenienced. If a million people do it will be.

For the more adventurous members of the resistance, there may be ways to starve the beast of tyranny of its taxes altogether. They are the Freeman concept, Chapter 61 of Magna Carta and duress of circumstances.

John Harris has explored the Freeman concept at length elsewhere and most readers of this publication will be aware of it.

Chapter 61 of Magna Carta covers the subject’s right to appeal to a committee of 25 Barons for redress against a tyrant. After several hundred thousand individuals sent postcards to The Queen in 1999 urging her not to agree to the Nice Treaty, 65 Peers selected a quorum of 25 of their number to form such a committee. They were satisfied that the conditions required to justify the use of the procedure specified in Ch. 61 of Magna Carta 1215 were established.

Four of their number served the petition on Her Majesty on 7th February 2001 insisting that she should:

withhold the Royal Assent from any Parliamentary Bill which attempts to ratify the Treaty of Nice unless and until the people of the UK have given clear and specific approval;

uphold and preserve the rights, freedoms and customs of your loyal subjects as set out in Magna Carta and the Declaration of Right, which you, our Sovereign, swore before the nation to uphold and preserve in your Coronation Oath of June 1953

These things she has conspicuously failed to do. The service of the Barons Petition was reported in the Daily Telegraph on the 7th February 2001. As a consequence of her failure to comply, all loyal subjects are required to “ together with the community of the whole realm, distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until redress has been obtained as they deem fit,...”.

Magna Carta was, of course, a peace treaty not a statute. Breaches of a treaty give the aggrieved party the right of redress. That means us, the people.

Seizing castles has always been a bit tricky. As noted above, holding back Council Tax is a lot easier and that is the meaning of the word “distraint”, the seizure and holding of property as security for payment of a debt or satisfaction of a claim.

The fact that “the whole community of The Realm” is expected to support the Barons Committee means that individual officials have no authority to issue tax demands in the name of The Queen and commit the statutory offence of “fraud by misrepresentation” if they try.

The Courts have no authority to deny the subjects rights either. Representatives of The Crown may not breach the common law maxim that “no man may sit in judgment of his own cause”.

It is for the Barons Committee to let us know when they are satisfied that redress has been obtained.

The Barons Committee procedure is based on the subject’s Common Law right to claim the protection of “duress of circumstances”. He, or she, may commit a minor crime to prevent a worse one happening. The only limitations on this defence are that it does not justify treason or murder and it does not protect the individual who voluntarily placed himself under duress or continues to commit minor offences when it is no longer necessary. Transferring allegiance is not treason because oaths of allegiance are sworn to the office, not its holder.

There we have it. All the lawful rebel has to do is say no to Council Tax for about five months. If you make sure not to spend the instalments on other things, and you are prepared to stump up the £90 costs, they can’t touch you for it.

At the time of publication, Chapter 61 and the defence of duress are before the Courts as a test case.

--

John's first appearance in court on this issue was on the 8th October, at Brecon Magistrates Court. John issued the following statement after the hearing:

So much for the events at Court. The significance of this case to us all is the reason why a local authority, or any other revenue gathering body, no longer has lawful authority to tax us. It is because The Crown, and all officials who act in the name of the Crown, have breached the contract with the people of these islands to rule us according to our laws and customs.

That contract was acknowledged in the peace treaties know as Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights. The present Queen publicly swore to uphold those laws and customs at her Coronation in 1953. In 2009 she gave Royal Assent to the unlawful pretended statute which gave effect to the Lisbon treaty and allowed foreign potentates of the European Union to issue directives and regulations which her officials then impose as if they had the authority of Parliament.

From that moment the UK changed from a constitutional monarchy to a tyranny, and we were subjected to the abuse of the state’s coercive force in the absence of the rule of law.

This is not the first time this has happened in history and our ancestors successfully resisted using our common law right to the protection of duress of circumstances confirmed in Chapter 61 of Magna Carta.

The “Skeleton Argument” that is before the Court explains what is at stake:

i. The respondent resides in a rented cottage in Powys and the Claimant has presented him with a bill for Council Tax for £900 in the name of The Queen.

ii. The Respondent has made a conditional offer to pay if the claimant can produce evidence that the claim is made lawfully. In the absence of such evidence, he is asserting that breaches of treaty obligations between The Crown and the people and the activation of the procedure specified by Ch. 61 of Magna Carta 1215 and, alternatively, the Common Law defence of duress of circumstances justify his withholding of the payment.

iii. The first matter at issue is the authority of The Queen (and Her officials) to issue demands for taxes at a time when she is under the supervision of a Barons Committee lawfully constituted under Ch. 61 of Magna Carta 1215. If the demand was made in the name of a Corporation and not The Queen then the Respondent has no contract with them and therefore no liability.

iv. The second matter at issue, which the Respondent alternatively and independently relies on, is the Common Law right of the subject to invoke the defence of duress of circumstances because The Queen has breached her Common Law treaty obligations with the people that were confirmed in Magna Carta 1215 and the Declaration of Rights 1688 and as a consequence the Respondents life, liberties and property are threatened.

i. The respondent has been a legal researcher for the Magna Carta Society (the MCS) since 1998 and helped produce the research paper on the possibility of raising a Barons Committee in 1999.

ii. Michael Burke, also a member of the society, petitioned the Courts to uphold the Declaration and Bill of Rights in 1998 and 1999 without success. The Judgments were referred to in the research paper and were part of the material relied upon in its arguments.

iii. Members of the public were invited to send postcards to The Queen urging her not to give Royal Assent to any statute which purported to give effect to the Nice Treaty in the UK. Several hundred thousand did so.

iv. The Queen failed to respond to public petitioning and there was no evidence that the then Prime Minister intended to change his counsels.

v. Members of the society petitioned each member of the Houses of Lords and Commons not to give their support to any statute relating to the Nice Treaty.

vi. 65 Peers selected a quorum of 25 of their number to address the petitions from the MCS and members of the public. They were satisfied that the conditions required to justify the use of the procedure specified in Ch. 61 of Magna Carta 1215 were established. Four of their number served the petition on Her Majesty on 7th February 2001.

vii. No response was made to the Barons Petition within the specified 40 days or has been to date. The conditions for Lawful Rebellion came into effect.

viii. The then Government used a purported statute (the House of Lords Act 1999) and the Rules of Parliament to deny a majority of the Hereditary Peers access to the House which prevented them exercising their Common Law right to be consulted about and vote on statutes. Officials took possession of their Letters Patent. They were replaced by hereditary Peers, many in dubious circumstances (the cash for Peerages scandal).

ix. The Queen gave Royal Assent to a purported statute giving effect to the Nice Treaty on 26/2/2002.

x. The Queen gave Royal Assent to a purported statute giving effect to the Lisbon Treaty on 19/06/2008. Direct rule from the European Union commenced in late 2009.

xi. Displaced hereditary Peers challenged the validity of the House of Lords Act and obtained an admission that it was invalid from a Government Minister, Baroness Ashton, on 20th September 2008. To date, no remedial action has been taken. This is described in the submission listed at Para 4. i. Above.

1. The Respondents Submissions Opposing a Liability Order.

i. I am a British subject of good character and have twice sworn the Oath of Allegiance, as a soldier and as a police officer. Both of those oaths require allegiance to the law, not an office holder, and require the individual concerned to make judgments about the lawfulness of his, or her, actions. So does the Judicial Oath.

ii. Regarding Ch. 61 of Magna Carta, I submit that a Baron’s Committee was lawfully raised, that their Petition was served on The Queen on 7th February 2001 and that the provisions of Ch. 61 of Magna Carta 1215 apply until the Committee or a duly constituted Constitutional Convention decides otherwise. I have sworn allegiance to that Committee. In these circumstances I submit that Powys Council has no authority to issue a tax demand to me.

iii. Regarding the defence of “duress of circumstances”, I have an honestly held belief that my life, liberty and property are at risk because laws that are repugnant to the Common Law are being applied within the UK. I did not place myself voluntarily in this position. Refusing to pay taxes to The Queen, who, together with certain evil counsellors, is responsible for this situation and is in breach of the Common Law and her Coronation Oath is an act of self defence on my part. Any refusal by Crown Officials to acknowledge the restraints that they are subject to will be further evidence that my beliefs are well founded.

iv. The Judicial Studies Board document referred to at Para. 3. iv. above confirms that it is for The Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt the defence of duress does not apply.

2. Remedies Sought by the Respondent.

i. For the reasons given above I respectfully submit that no properly directed Court has authority to try me for refusing to pay Council Tax. If the Brecon Magistrates are unable to make a ruling on this I claim my right to have the issues that I have raised put before a lawfully constituted (complete with all hereditary Peers and without post 1999 Life Peers) House of Lords in order for a case to be stated. That is because the defects in the House of Lords Act 1999 noted above call into doubt the validity of the new “Supreme Court”.

ii. If the Brecon Magistrates are unable to do that I ask for these matters to be put before the Supreme Court for a case to be stated. I reserve the right to challenge the validity of that Court for the reasons given.

Respectfully submitted,

John Hurst.

John's next court appearance is on the 5th November at Llandrindod Wells Magistrates Court. Everyone is encouraged to attend."

This soundtrack encapsulates pretty much everything I have been trying to tell you for over a year.

The music is annoying, but get over that and listen to Robert.

This piece is jammed with sound advice.The blogosphere is whispering revolution this morning. It does my heart good to see the better known bloggers openly defying the government and advocating civil disobedience. All the hand-wringing, the letter writing, the contacting your MP/MSP, the petitions, and the protests have not worked. We tried to tell them that we are displeased, but they ignored us.

I absolutely guarantee that the minute the money dries up their hearing will be miraculously restored.

October 30, 2010

The good kind. Civil disobedience, saying "NO!", starving them of cash, and generally showing the government that we are actually in charge. They have forgotten that, and maybe, just maybe, if enough brave people have a go at them, they will undergo a moment of clarity, leading to sudden recall, and a desire to actually ask us what we want.

This is a great guide from Anarchyland. Please share the link with all your friends. Send it to strangers too. After all, a stranger is just a friend you haven't annoyed yet.

Annoy them with this. They will probably appreciate it.

The fact that I get a mention in the vid has nothing to do with me posting it. Nothing at all. Really.

Some people have told me privately that I should not pick at the scab. That I should let sleeping dogs lie. I cannot.

I cannot because mine is an offensive position, not defensive. I have nothing to fear because I know I am right. I have a feeling that they do as well.

This little war has raged for almost two years. As you will see from the last update, the very best defence they could offer was wrapped up in one single word: nugatory.

And yet, even with their "cast iron" defence, I remain free, no visits to court, and the money is still in my bank account. I have never refused to pay, you may recall. All I did was ask some simple questions. To this day, no controversy exists.

No news, as we all know, is no news. I just wanted to let you all know that absolutely nothing has transpired since their awe-inspiring letter last month.

And absolutely nothing has changed my mind. I am resolute. I am ready.

When we do go toe to toe, I will massacre them. I have a stack of paperwork eight inches tall. They are challenging me with......nugatory.

October 28, 2010

For those with linkophobia, I will explain. Our boys in blue stopped and searched over 100,000 people in 2009-2010. Of those one hundred thousand, 60,000 were white, British citizens. Naturally, if you are looking for terrorists, the very people you must stop and search should be beardless, and the least likely to be active terrorists among the community. They should look nothing like terrorists, for a start. That way lies madness. That is just an open door to a racism and/or profiling charge. Avoid it at all costs. Just 17% were Asian. I'm no racist, and as I say ad nauseum, I have worked, lived, and chilled out with Muslims for over twenty years. If anyone is likely to be bimbling around London with 3 kilos of Semtex packed with nails, it is likely to be a Muslim-like person. Tell me I'm wrong.

Even more worrying is the fact that of these 100,000 searches, not one single terrorist was found! Not one.

In a rare display of glasnost, I am going to tip off the Metropolitan Police: You are looking at the wrong fucking people!

The people you are looking for will look something like this:

Or this:

But you keep stopping white people. You keep stopping and searching the wrong demographic.

October 27, 2010

Not here, where it was written, I hasten to add. This is an update to the story I ran a week or so ago about Georgia's Representative Franklyn, and his plans to introduce a law called The Right To Travel Act.

It is most interesting.

Look:

10 LC 34 2350

House Bill 875

By: Representative Franklin of the 43rd

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT

To amend Title 40 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to motor vehicles and traffic, so as to repeal Chapter 5, relating to drivers' licenses; provide for a short title; to report the findings of the General Assembly regarding the constitutionality of certain laws relating to drivers' licenses; to provide for an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA:

SECTION 1.

This Act shall be known and may be cited as the "Right to Travel Act."

SECTION 2.

The General Assembly finds that:

(1) Free people have a common law and constitutional right to travel on the roads and highways that are provided by their government for that purpose. Licensing of drivers cannot be required of free people because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of an inalienable right;

(2) In England in 1215, the right to travel was enshrined in Article 42 of Magna Carta:

It shall be lawful to any person, for the future, to go out of our kingdom, and to return, safely and securely, by land or by water, saving his allegiance to us, unless it be in time of war, for some short space, for the common good of the kingdom: excepting prisoners and outlaws, according to the laws of the land, and of the people of the nation at war against us, and Merchants who shall be treated as it is said above.

(3) Where rights secured by the Constitution of the United States and the State of Georgia are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate these rights. The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon an individual because of this exercise of constitutional rights;

(4) American citizens have the inalienable right to use the roads and highways unrestricted in any manner so long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. The government, by requiring the people to obtain drivers' licenses, is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law and constitutional right to travel;

(5) InShapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Potter Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that the right to travel "is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association...it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." The Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; and we hold that the right to travel is so fundamental that the Framers thought it was unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights;

(6) The right to travel upon the public highways is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will but the common right which every citizen has under his or her right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his or her inclination along the public highways or in public places while conducting himself or herself in an orderly and decent manner; and

(7) Thus, the legislature does not have the power to abrogate the citizens' right to travel upon the public roads by passing legislation forcing the citizen to waive the right and convert that right into a privilege.

SECTION 3.

Title 40 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to motor vehicles and traffic, is amended by repealing Chapter 5, relating to drivers' licenses, and designating said chapter as reserved.

SECTION 4.

This Act shall become effective upon its approval by the Governor or upon its becoming law without such approval.

October 26, 2010

I can fully comprehend why people are reluctant to become Freemen/Freewomen. It is a drastic step to take if you still need the state. Most of us do in one way, shape or form. Take me, for instance. I have chipped in to my state pension scheme for over thirty years. Should I walk away from that? I still pay tax and NIC's, and council tax, so should I not be permitted to call the police, or an ambulance or a fire engine if I need one? Despite having paid the state to educate my children should I now keep them at home?

No, no and no.

I am still entitled to those benefits if I have need of them. I will have a need until the state agrees with my standing as a Freeman and agrees that I will no longer pay all those taxes and then I will make alternative arrangements. So, it is messy being 100% Freeman. We are lashed to the state in many ways. It's a two way street of course, they need us and we need them. Until we find another way, that is.

Is there another way we can demonstrate our displeasure? In a meaningful way that will draw attention to the wrongs committed in our name? Most importantly, is there a risk-free way of doing this?

Yes, yes and yes.

The answer is, of course, Lawful Rebellion. And I know I bang on about this, but this course of action is not political, it is not to dodge parking tickets, it is not even an act of defiance. It is your solemn duty. It is both a right and an obligation rolled into one. This right, and the attending instructions on employing that right are enshrined in Magna Carta 1215 Article 61. MC1215 is still valid. It cannot be repealed, it cannot be deleted. Find the Great Charter (1215 or 1297) and read the relevant articles. This is not some fuzzy little rule to be dug out and waved around willy-nilly. This is deadly serious. Our Monarch has committed treason. She has diluted her power and stated that a foreign government (the EU) has authority over her, and us. She did this by signing the Lisbon Treaty into UK law. This is in direct contravention of the Coronation Oath that she swore on June 2nd, 1953. There is a remedy in law for this. Exercise it. For the good of our nation.

The wording used in the affidavits is somewhat arcane, but it is using the proper form. You can read and download the two affidavits fromhere.

Are there any risks attached to entering Lawful Rebellion?

How can there be? You are exercising your right under ancient law. One her predecessors agreed to. One that she agreed to. How can you be at risk by carrying out your obligations? The short, and only answer, is that you cannot.

What does Lawful Rebellion do for you?

Look:

Lawful Rebellion allows quite simply for the following recourse;

Full refusal to pay any forms of Tax, Fines and any other forms of monies to support and/or benefit said unlawful governance of this country.

Full refusal to abide by any Law, Legislation or Statutory Instrument invalidly put in place by said unlawful governance that is in breech of the Constitutional safeguard.

To hinder in any way possible all actions of the treasonous government of this land, who have breeched the Constitutional safeguard; defined with no form of violence in any way, just lawful hindrance under freedom asserted by Constitutional Law and Article 61.

I say this time and time again, and I will say it one more time: Lawful Rebellion is not a way of getting out of debt, or getting out of parking tickets, or a reason to disregard the police, and it certainly does not give you carte blanche to run amok. This is a vitally serious undertaking and you should think hard before committing yourself to this ultimate remedy. You are swearing allegiance to the Baron's Committee which was formed by 65 members of the nobility in 2001, of which four were selected as a quorum to inform the queen that they had entered Lawful Rebellion. Her Maj was given forty days in which to inform the quorum that she was not, in fact, held prisoner by divers persons, and that she would, with all haste, make good on her Oath. She did not do so. Hardly surprising, if she is held captive or has been misinformed and misguided by those evil counsellors. The Barons opened the door, and it is up to those of us who love our nation to follow them through it.

Please read and take on board the information at all three of the links in this piece.

Then, (and I know this is old fashioned), do your duty. Do what is right.

Do what must be done.

And do it with a clear conscience and a happy heart.

No harm will befall you. None at all.

CR.

UPDATE: To see our saviour (MC1215) being used as she ought to be, read this! I sincerely doubt that anyone, anywhere, knows this stuff better than John. Please wish him all the best over at Ian's place.

October 24, 2010

A bold claim coupled with a reasonable question. Naturally, it requires an explanation.

(Some folks thought that my last post was arrogant. I can't wait to see how they feel about this one).

Whether or not you are religious, you need to know that you are but one rung down from your god, or if you prefer, your creator. It doesn't matter if you aren't religious: they are. Almost all of our laws can find their roots in one bible or another. The US Constitution, for instance, contains over 15,000 references to the King James bible. Almost all legal maxims come from the "good" book. Even if you removed every single statute from the Rolls, you would find almost everything is still covered by the bible.

Understand this: you are unique. There has never been anyone quite like you on earth before, and there never will be again. The roads you take between your birth and your death are yours to choose. Depending on your philosophy, the roads you take, and the deeds you attempt/accomplish are pre-ordained. Or they aren't. It doesn't matter. What matters is that you chose them. For good or ill, you have to live (and die) with the choices you made. Today I offer you another choice. Another road to take. Each of us humans make around 6,000 decisions every single day of our lives. I am adding to that number by just one.

My "minor god" statement isn't frivolous. It is a matter of fact. (As long as you are in possession of the right facts, that is).

Think about it in the context of a court appearance. When you enter that room, contrary to popular opinion, the judge does not own the room: you do. You paid for the building. You even pay the prosecutors salary. How's that for irony? "I'm paying your salary, but you go right ahead and punish me". Same goes for the jury. You pay their expenses too. You are paying everyone in the room to judge you and mete out the punishment for whatever infraction they say you committed.

Take a step back and make a note of this. The judge represents the state. He or she does so under the umbrella of a limited company. The prosecutor represents the state. He or she does so under the umbrella of a limited company. The court and the Ministry of Justice are both listed on Dunn and Bradstreet. Both have a company number. On the wall outside the court you will even see a sign displaying their "Hours of business". They are not exactly being sneaky about it, we just don't bother to read and understand the way they operate.

So, in you trot. Unless you state otherwise, they want to deal with your corporation. This is a business deal. Someone is going to be parting company with some of the folding paper, and it isn't likely to be them. This is just two companies carrying out a transaction. Unless you change the rules. Some brave people tell the court exactly what they are, and it sometimes yields results. (Tip of the beret to Ranter for the link). Adam (in the linked report) got what he wanted. And no, I didn't expect this big, expensive machine we pay for to admit any more than they did. It is good to see Freemen walking the walk.

You would be well within your rights to assert your human beingness. In fact, you'd be daft not to. You have infinitely more power than them, but they have conveniently transmogrified you, the human, into an artificial construct. None of them are ever going to take you to one side and say "Hey, you know what? All this Freeman stuff is absolutely right. We have been conning you for centuries". Why would they? If everyone studied the law, just a little, our hundreds of thousands of lawyers are out of a cushy job. Not that I blame them, necessarily. From what little I know, it seems that most of them are in the dark as well. But threaten their livelihoods and you are going to meet resistance.

The golden rule is this: if it is/was man made, you are superior to it. It is just common sense. You outrank anything that was not made by God/Yahweh/Allah/Buddah etc etc. You are superior to your government, your courts, your councils, the Foreign Office, the Home Office, HMRC, all those ministries, and of course, all the people who work in/for them. While they wear a badge or claim to be representing whatever department, you are superior. You should remind yourself of this every single day. It's a game-changer.

As I said earlier, a human being is a unique beast. You were changed, (most in this movement agree that the change ocurred at your birth), from a sentient being into a corporation that the other corporations could do business with. It is simply a sound commercial practise. Nothing wrong in that at all, except that no-one tells you. So you end up forking out shedloads of cash when your artificial construct makes a boo-boo. Ultimately, we should want to continue this bizarre commercial contract but we should be in control, not them. This is possible but as you would expect, it is vastly complex, and most of us just say, "To hell with that, I'll just carry on as I am". The other day I was emailed a brilliant chunk of information from a regular commenter here. As soon as he (and I) have researched further, we will bring you an update. It is quite exciting and may well be one of those jaw-dropping breakthroughs that we need so badly.

So remember, if the eyes see, the arms move, the heart beats, the ears hear and the mouth speaks, you are dealing with a human being.

If it needs animating by someone/something else, it is an artificial, man-made item. The big clue is that it will have no eyes, ears, mouth, arms, legs or a heart. You will then know that you are dealing with a legal fiction, a corporation, a company, an artificial construct.

Whenever you come across one of those, understand, finally, that you are supreme.

I kid you not: You. Are. A. Minor. God.

So get on with it. If this post does not alter your approach to life, or your way of thinking in even the smallest way, re-read it until realisation dawns.

The Mark 1 human eyeball has the ability to discern over 500 shades of grey. There is no grey in this story. None at all. We have been taught to forget what we are. This is merely a reminder to you.

Those you come across who do not understand this most basic of realities need to be taught. Patiently and with compassion. You are removing their Matrix plug, so be ready with a new reality for them to begin learning about. They need our help if we are to live life the way it was meant to be lived. Unburdened, unfettered, free.

There is a time for everything. They need to learn. And the time is now.

October 23, 2010

I talk, of course, about those seven million people who refuse to contribute. All they do is take. Then there are the politicians, 650 of them, but with legions of employees, who are also parasitical in nature. Both groups take, and take, and take. The seven million, the vast majority of whom offer nothing in return, are killing us. Their supporters, the politicians, have never known when to stop taking. I don't know about you, but I have had a bellyfull.

I know that a certain proportion of those milions cannot work due to illness or disability. I have absolutely nothing against supporting those in genuine need. It is the mark of a civilised society that cares for those most in need. My problem is with those who constantly take the piss. I include the politicians because they drive the whole thing.

I have decided to withdraw my support. I have decided not to contribute. I have lawful excuse. The law,their law, says that I can revoke my consent at any time. I have done so. All that is left is for me to ensure that they know why, and how, I have revoked my consent.

By their very own rules we learn that parliament is illegitimate. It has been since 1911. We have learnt that council tax is illegal. Income tax is illegal. In fact, all taxation is illegal. Our Your legislature is a three-step process: a Bill is introduced by an MP in the House of commons, debated and fine-tuned, it then goes to the House of Lords for more tweaking, (there may be a bit of back and forth between the two Houses) and finally, it goes to Lizzie for her moniker. She makes her mark and alakazam, we have a new statute on the Rolls. Simple enough so far, but if there is anything wrong with the foundations of any of those three institutions, anything and everything they produce lacks legitimacy. Research tells us that the House of Lords has lacked legitimacy for 99 years. They just "forgot" to tell us that.

And like good little soldier ants, we beavered away. Scurrying hither and yon, supporting and defending the ant hill. Most of the ants will do this forever. They are fast asleep and they demand more sleeping pills. They are in a walking coma, and they are doomed. Because they choose to remain in a coma, they doom us all. They just don't know it, and not enough of them are interested enough to enforce change. And why would they? They are feeling no pain. They deserve all this "free" money. It hurts me to cough up 53% of my salary in direct taxation, and it hurts even more to get nailed for more taxes every time I do the right thing by spending my hard-earned coin.

After working for the ant hill for 32 years, this bastard coalition have convinced me that enough is enough. The last lot were merely incompetent. This new lot are worse because they combined incompetence with stupidity and lack of vision. They bite the hand that feeds them 24/7. The spending review last week was woefully underdone. This was their big chance to fix all the screw ups from the reich of Colostomy Brown and his fuhrer, Antonius Fuckwit Blair. They failed. They failed miserably. I won't rehash, or even attempt to rewrite some fantastically scathing blogposts by people who outwrite me with ease. Increasing foreign aid, when we are hurting so much, was beyond my ability to understand. When the Ranty household needs to tighten its collective belt, the first things we dump are luxuries. Foreign aid is a luxury. We can make these payments when things improve, and not before.

The quangoes and those hundreds of thousands of fake charities must have pissed themselves laughing. No charities were decoupled from the public tit, and those 200 quangoes were merely realigned. Same money, just laundered differently.

I've had it. I've taken as much as I'm willing to take. I've given far more than my fair share.

1. THOU SHALT ALWAYS WEAR TWEED. No other fabric says so defiantly: I am a man of panache, savoir-faire and devil-may-care, and I will not be served Continental lager beer under any circumstances.

2 THOU SHALT NEVER NOT SMOKE. Health and Safety "executives" and jobsworth medical practitioners keep trying to convince us that smoking is bad for the lungs/heart/skin/eyebrows, but we all know that smoking a bent apple billiard full of rich Cavendish tobacco raises one's general sense of well-being to levels unimaginable by the aforementioned spoilsports.

3 THOU SHALT ALWAYS BE COURTEOUS TO THE LADIES. A gentleman is never truly seated on an omnibus or railway carriage: he is merely keeping the seat warm for when a lady might need it. Those who take offence at being offered a seat are not really Ladies.

4 THOU SHALT NEVER, EVER, WEAR PANTALOONS DE NIMES. When you have progressed beyond fondling girls in the back seats of cinemas, you can stop wearing jeans. Wear fabrics appropriate to your age, and, who knows, you might even get a quick fumble in your box at the opera.

5 THOU SHALT ALWAYS DOFF ONE'S HAT. Alright, so you own a couple of trilbies. Good for you - but it's hardly going to change the world. Once you start actually lifting them off your head when greeting, departing or simply saluting passers-by, then the revolution will really begin.

6 THOU SHALT NEVER FASTEN THE LOWEST BUTTON ON THY WESKIT. Look, we don't make the rules, we simply try to keep them going. This one dates back to Edward VII, sufficient reason in itself to observe it.

8 THOU SHALT NEVER WEAR PLIMSOLLS WHEN NOT DOING SPORT. Nor even when doing sport. Which you shouldn't be doing anyway. Except cricket.

9 THOU SHALT ALWAYS WORSHIP AT THE TROUSER PRESS. At the end of each day, your trousers should be placed in one of Mr. Corby's magical contraptions, and by the next morning your creases will be so sharp that they will start a riot on the high street.

I am heading south to London tomorrow for a two day conference and then even souther to Tripoli for a swift visit. Libya is one of the tougher countries to blag your way into, but I'll give it a go. It may be a swift arrest followed by an even swifter deportation. I'm game for a laugh.

Naturally, I am underwhelmed at the prospect of what will probably be two full days in transit with dear old BA. Remember their old advert: "We'll take more care of yoooooo. Fly the flaaaag".

Can't wait.

I will be staying at a hotel in G-G-G-Granville Place (W1H) for my stay in big, fancy London. If any of you wish to partake of the foaming ale, I will be the Northern drunken monkey causing trouble in any ale-houses near the hotel. (I never shit where I eat...). Wing a note to captainranty at btinternet dot com and if it's doable, we'll do it.

The last time I visited London there was sex, drugs, fighting, and a lot of shouting in my hotel room. The night porter came up at around 3 a.m and said "Really Captain! This has to stop, the other guests are complaining! Just how does one man, alone, cause such a ruckus?!".

Play nice.

CR.

PS-two popular telly shows from a thousand years ago got a tenuous mention in this post. There's a shiny donkey in the mail for whoever spots them first.

PPS-There won't really be any shiny donkey's in the mail. It would upset PETA. And think of the postage!

October 17, 2010

I think it is human nature to look back and remember "the good old days" (hereafter TGOD) with misty-eyed joy.

I certainly do. But it wasn't everything that was good, was it? It just seems that way now. Less complicated. Freer. More care-free. Cheaper, obviously, but we tend to forget that the price of things is tied to income, and since most of us back then (just like today) were on or below the average salary, it was just as expensive. Back then we could never imagine a pint of beer costing £3.50, or a loaf of bread costing £1.30, or the cost of a litre of petrol (never mind a gallon) costing £1.20. Fags at nearly six quid a packet? Do be brief. A can of coke costing £1? Jog on. Our TGOD were back when things cost a fraction of what they cost today.

Forty years later I visit nations in Africa, and I can buy a loaf of bread for 6 pence. I can buy a coke for 12 pence. I can buy a litre of petrol for 10 pence. I can buy 20 smokes for 35 pence. Yes, most of these developing nations are inhabited by the poorest of the poor. Bread at 50 pence a loaf would rot on the shelves. Fuel at £1 a litre would go unsold. If the market can withstand higher prices, then that is what happens. Supply and demand, but only if the price is right for that particular market.

When I was very young (mid sixties), freedom meant running around after school in bare feet and a pair of shorts. I was as brown as a berry. It meant swimming in rivers, fishing, catching snakes, finding massive bullfrogs the size of footballs, diving for balls in the local golf course lake and selling them back to the course pro, and generally lazing around in the sun. I could probably still do all that if I wanted to but the climate here doesn't lend itself to barefeet and snake-catching. TGOD in Rhodesia was when we had one black & white channel on the telly. It only ran for 6 hours a day so my folks would hire in a film and a projector and invite all the neighbours in to watch old films. Then, TGOD in South Africa were when they launched SABC. In colour! One channel in English and one in Afrikaans. We would watch either channel and be just as captivated. This was the early seventies and life still contained some magic. TGOD is highly subjective and everyone has a different version, and crucially, a different time period for their own TGOD.

The reason my title has a question mark at the end is because I wondered, stupidly I suppose, if today, right now, will become someone else's TGOD five, ten, or fifteen years from now? And why?

Will it be because "Back in 2010 we only had 5 million CCTV cameras, nowadays we have well over 40 million. Several in every home, just as the EU mandated"?

Will it be because "Back in 2010 we only had UK coppers to worry about. Now there are 27 different uniforms on the street and they all carry guns, which they discharge without any obvious provocation"?

Will it be because "Back then there were no food riots"?

Will it be because "Back then we still had the £. A real £, mind you. Before they ended cash money"?

Will it be because "Back then our first language was English"?

Will it be because "Back then we weren't microchipped"?

I could go on. And on. But you get the picture. What is it that defines "The good old days" and what is it that will define now as the good old days in the future?

Everything seems to be getting worse, everywhere and all the time. And we encourage it. We encourage it because none of us say "WHOA! This is it. This is where we draw a line. This is where the rot stops".

I am distinctly uncomfortable with today. These are not good days, so for me they will never become the good old days.

Do we soldier on, as we are? Do we keep telling ourselves that ignorance is bliss?

October 16, 2010

You should watch the whole thing for context but the fun starts at around 5 minutes and the jaw-dropper, the statement that finally convinced me that what I am doing is right, comes at around the 7 minute point.

Take a look. Be amazed at the pure simplicity of it all.

Those of you that don't get it didn't pay attention. Watch it until you do.

October 15, 2010

There are quite a few countries Regions involved. I counted 12 or so. The most violent protest was in Spain where the cops fired rubber bullets. The oddest was in Dublin where a truck driver parked his truck in front of the parliament gates so that the politicians couldn't get in. I would have blocked the bastards in and not let them out until they had fixed the problem.

Try as I might, I couldn't see any privately employed people on the streets. Just those with their lips welded to the public tit.

Now, it's not for me to point the finger of blame, but perhaps if you hadn't voted for the fuckers so consistently we might not be in this mess today. If you really want someone to blame, have a glance in the next mirror you come across.

October 14, 2010

Now they are shooting unarmed men. Lefties will be pleased that the copper who did the killing has the full backing of his union. The police chief admits that this is "extremely unusual" and the cop has been released on bail. You can get the full story here.

We need guns, folks.

Not to defend ourselves from muggers, rapists, thieves and Yardies.

But from the bloody police.

UPDATE: Mr Trigger Happy has now been charged with second degree murder. This is only right and proper. Now, if only we could get some of the murdering bastards in UK police forces charged we could begin to trust in the good ones again.

Tip of the beret toMuddyfor keeping an eye out for the follow up report. While you're there, do have a read. Muddy writes great articles, and his latest is especially apropos.

The only mercy offered in this short video is that there is no sound. Actually, it kind of makes it worse, somehow. A silent scream is worse than that loud shrieking that we heard last week, because you have to imagine the hell, and the pain, that the suspect victim, is going through.

And if anyone can tell me what those brave men are attempting to do with that hosepipe, I would be eternally grateful.

Videos (evidence, if you prefer), of coppers abusing people were as rare as rocking-horse shit at one time. They are now a weekly feature. It makes you wonder why the cops demand these CCTV cameras and then stupidly forget that they are there. What worries me deeply is that many of these systems may be malfunctioning or even deliberately deactivated and what we see weekly may, in reality, be ocurring daily, or hourly.

I know that most of us want to believe that the boys in blue are there to protect and serve, and someone will no doubt attempt to tell us that their actions are necessary.

I seriously hope that that someone shows up to tell us about the hosepipe action going on in the second segment of the film, and he/she will hopefully convince us that it is a lawful procedure.

As always, we don't know the whole story, so we have to be a bit careful until we do.

Based on what I can see going on in the clip, it is horrifying.

I don't know about you, but if I am ever hauled off to a police station, at worst I want to be slightly worried and a little nervous.

October 13, 2010

All they asked for was a fair crack of the whip and our pathetic justice system roared "No!" in defiance of public opinion. I have yet to meet anyone who says these warriors deserve less than their British counter-parts.

Apart from the spineless Court of Appeal, that is. Them and the Ministry of Defence. 45,000 Gurkhas died for us. They fought so that we could have a court of fucking appeal. Their contribution in so many wars kept the MoD employed, FFS!

I have shared tents with these guys. I have eaten their food. I have even rubbed some strange tobacco-like shit on my gums (very few of them smoke) in an effort to integrate with them. I have trained with them. I have an incredible respect for them. If we ran fifteen miles they would smile at us, and go on to run twenty. If asked, they would have run fifty.

To bastardise that famous speech of Winnie's, never has a nation owed so much to so few tough men.

Give them their full pensions you gutless, tight-fisted bastards. Take it off the workshy, the lazy, and those that have never contributed a single fucking thing to the safety and security of this nation. Better yet, take that full-to-brimming pension pot from the feckless, the indolent, the no-marks, and the utterly useless bunch of pricks in the House of Commons, and give that to the more deserving Gurkhas.

The Gurkhas deserve everything we can give them. They earned it. They gave up a life in Nepal to serve Britain. Some went home only once every 3 years to see their families. So fucking get it sorted already. Today I am embarrassed to call myself a Brit. The Court of Appeal has fucked this up. Big style.

Short video from Charlie explaining his arrest and subsequent appearance in the Edinburgh court.

Short it may be, but there is enough said here to worry even the most entrenched statist. If they aren't worried it just means that they didn't pay attention.

Charlie has no redress under the corrupt system in play today. This is why Freemen include a Fee Schedule with their paperwork. My fee for unlawful arrest and detention is £1000 per hour. Would I get paid? Probably not, but I would pursue a County Court judgement against whichever authority did not pay up. Remember that they are companies and they need, just like we do, a clean credit record.

When the EU machine kicks in fully, we will hear more and more about unlawful arrests. Mark my words.

We need to change the system. First we need to dump the EU, but our second move should be fixing our shitty legal system.

One of our two lovely cats was killed this morning. We think she was hit by a car and then made her way back to our garden to die.

Maisy, pictured above on a walk with me and the dogs a couple of days ago, was nearly two years old.

We will miss her.

Her sister is bewildered. I hope she recovers soon.

There is no need to add any comments if you don't want to.

I just wanted to mark her time with us and her sudden passing.

AMENDED UPDATE: One of the mechanics who works in the garage next door says that he saw Maisy run into a car (the rear wheel) at around 08:00 am. He had already slowed down to turn into the garage, as he did so, he saw both of our cats playing in the garden across the road from us. He says that the "all white cat" chased the "stripey one" out of the garden. Maisy, deep in the game, did not exercise her usual caution, ran across the road to escape her sister and hit the rear tyre head first. After a couple of seconds, she shook her head and headed up next doors driveway. He thought that the cat lived next door and talked to the lady. From his description she did not recognise it as our Maisy. This means that she was injured when we saw her at 8:30 in the kitchen but we did not know. There is no sense dwelling on it but we may have been able to do something for her had we known. If it was, as I suspect, a fractured skull, then the chances are very, very slim that the vet could have saved her.

I don't do conspiracies. Never have. But 9/11 does seem to be surrounded by questions that have never been answered. At least, not properly. And certainly not by the US authorities.

I just have three very simple questions:

1. The heat generated by the planes crashing into the towers was several thousand degrees. So intense was the heat, it reduced two very big aircraft to almost nothing. I just wonder why they found a neat pile of seven slightly charred passports in the rubble belonging to the "bad guys".

2. Why were traces of thermite found in the rubble on all three sites?

3. When you see images of the Pentagon wall where the third plane struck, why is there no damage, not even a scratch, where the engines would have struck the wall? And, where are the engines?

Whatever you think happened, we can be sure of one fact: we will probably never learn the truth of those terrible events. It was an awful day and I remember it vividly. I was sort of involved. The company I worked for at the time despatched around 300 satellite phones for the FBI agents on the ground to use.

The film, inevitably, raises even more questions. I was amazed to learn that one aircraft engine was buried in a landfill. Its serial number was never retrieved before it was buried. That one serial number on its own would have answered around fifty questions the "truthers" have. Yet they buried it without bothering to note what it was. A mystery wrapped up in an enigma surrounded by a puzzle? Or wilful negligence? You decide.

This video seems to be delivered in more sensible tones than some of the others I have looked at.

October 11, 2010

Jug-eared* journalistic lightweight Andrew Marr has had a go at bloggers. I thought I would respond. I am not even going to get into the good that we do. I am not going to mention freeing Nick Hogan, telling the world the truth about the Troughers in parliament, or the very recent quashing of the case against pensioner Sheila Martin. These stories, and dozens like them, make bloggers a force to be reckoned with. If any change is going to brought about in this messed up world, you can bet everything you own that it won't effected by the Lame Stream Media.

*You started it.

Here we go:

"The so-called "citizen journalists" will never offer a real replacement to newspapers and television news, he told Cheltenham Literature Festival. He said: "Most citizen journalism strikes me as nothing to do with journalism at all. "

"..so-called "citizen journalists..". So-called by whom? I don't class myself as a journalist, thankfully. I would take that as his first insult. Activist, perhaps, because I am actively seeking change.

"A lot of bloggers seem to be socially inadequate, pimpled, single, slightly seedy, bald, cauliflower-nosed, young men sitting in their mother's basements and ranting. They are very angry people. "OK – the country is full of very angry people. Many of us are angry people at times. Some of us are angry and drunk. But the so-called citizen journalism is the spewings and rantings of very drunk people late at night. "It is fantastic at times but it is not going to replace journalism." Responding to a question from his audience at Cheltenham Town Hall he added: "Most of the blogging is too angry and too abusive. It is vituperative."

Name calling. What a great way to state your case. That was a mini-rant all on its own. No pimples here. I never got any. At least, not enough to cause me any dismay. I put that down to drinking loads of fresh water when I was a teenager and never ever using pharmaceutical shit on my face. Socially inadequate? Well, I get invited regularly (when abroad) to Embassy/Consulate functions, I regularly speak to crowds of 200 or more at conferences, and several times, when visiting customers in Africa, I am invited to stay with them rather than using a hotel. Slightly seedy? So I like to blog in a pretty frock* and occasionally look at the porn-spam that comes in. So what? My nose is normal, and I don't have a basement. Neither does Mater. The only thing you got right was the seething rage. We by-passed anger quite some time ago. And guess what, Wing-nut? You fucking contribute to it by not doing your job properly. Drunk? Sure. Sometimes. In fact, some of my most popular posts were inspired by the juniper and the grape. Do you never drink? If not I would recommend that you start. Don't stop until you produce something readable.

*Just kidding. I wear a tutu.

"Terrible things are said on line because they are anonymous. People say things on line that they wouldn't dream of saying in person."

I beg to differ. What I say on-line I say in person. This relates to the anger we discussed earlier. I am sick and tired of being shat on. Again, you are part of that defecation. I remain anonymous, mostly, because to sing a different song is to invite attention I don't want at this time. You are Borg. I am becoming unassimilated.

"Marr was giving a talk about how modern technology is rapidly changing the way people receive news and current affairs information."

Your medium is dying, Wing-nut. You spout left-wing bile and suck up to politicians. What else did you expect? I dumped you and your ilk a couple of years ago. I read blogs because I know the writers are giving me more detail, and more perspective, and more honesty than you could ever give. It also allows me to see several sides of the same coin. You show me the side you insist I take as the truth. No thanks.

"He said change is happening frighteningly quickly with newspaper sales slumping as people turn to the internet. It was a sad fact that the media would be employing fewer journalists as sales of hard copies declined, he said. But he believed that we are in a transitional phase and that in future people will be willing to pay for online news and information in the way that they now do for newspapers and magazines."

Now we get down to it. Your job is on the line. After years of lacklustre performances you need a scapegoat. Like all lefties it simply has to be someone else's fault. Not your responsibility, right? Wrong, Wing-nut, quite wrong. Perhaps if you had tried a little harder, more of us would be watching you. I did once, and I was embarrassed at the way you let the politician go just when you had him. A piss-poor performance does not endear you to the nation. Paying for news on-line? Are you serious? It was dire enough when they used dead trees to get the word out. A quick squint at The Times will tell you all you need to know about on-line news and how popular it is. I'd rather have genital warts than pay for on-line bias. You can almost see the tumble-weed. No-one is interested. You "journalists" live in a cut & paste world. Very little news is original. You are lazy bastards. You deserve to be sacked. A spotty teenager can cut & past just as well, if not better than you bozos. Give them the jobs.

"I am spending a lot of money on my iTunes account, I am already buying journalism on line, I am buying information on line, I am buying books on line," he said."

How lovely for you. Read more blogs. Join the real world. It will fry your brain to learn that other people have views. Just because they don't match yours doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Grow up, FFS!

"Even if you are not going [sic] it, your children and your grandchildren will be doing it."

Case in point. Did someone cut & paste your words, or is that typo all your very own?

Freeman Ben Lowrey nicely explains what it is all about. He bursts some bubbles in this explanatory video. But he does it in a non-aggressive way that makes it simple to understand.

Elsewhere I have seen negative comments about Ben because he has an area on his site which is for fee paying members only. I have no problem with this at all. If Ben is prepared to dedicate huge amounts of his time to research, then surely he deserves to be recompensed for his labour? I think so. Ben provides a service which has a value. The only way to see if you get value for money is to try the service he provides. I would advise only Freemen and those in Lawful Rebellion to sign up for the fee paying service, and I say that because I believe only those who have done some serious study will know what to do with the information. That sounds a little condescending and it is not my intention to insult people. It is a serious move to make.

Taking control of your artificial construct is itself laden with responsibility and should not be attempted by the unlearned or the unknowing.

I don't charge for information presented on here because almost none of it is original. I did not produce it. Usually I find it through the endeavours of other Freemen or Lawful Rebels. The only original posts here are those containing no links whatsoever. If they aren't original, I will say so. Having said that, my blog has a value. But it is to advertisers. I will never allow adverts on here (apart from tobacco products but that is an act of defiance rather than a revenue raiser) largely because I have no interest in money, beyond that which I need to feed my family.

Back to Ben.

Note that Ben is now preparing to take control of his Strawman or, more accurately, his artificial construct. I mentioned last year that this was my ultimate goal, and that remains true today. The only reason I haven't pursued that is because I wanted to pick (and win) one fight at a time. I am now close to winning the HMRC battle and after that I will start on Council Tax, and then I intend to have some fun with the DVLA. There is no shortage of government agencies to toy with.

You can register at Ben's site for free and I hope that you do so. There is a ton of useful information that will help you if your mission is to free yourself from the state.

concurring opinion that the right to travel "is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association...it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." The Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; and we hold that the right to travel is so fundamental that the Framers thought it was unnecessary to include it in the

Constitution or the Bill of Rights;

(6) The right to travel upon the public highways is not a mere privilege which may be

permitted or prohibited at will but the common right which every citizen has under his or

her right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guarantee

one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his or her inclination along the

public highways or in public places while conducting himself or herself in an orderly and

decent manner; and

(7) Thus, the legislature does not have the power to abrogate the citizens' right to travel

upon the public roads by passing legislation forcing the citizen to waive the right and

convert that right into a privilege.

SECTION 3.

Title 40 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to motor vehicles and traffic,

is amended by repealing Chapter 5, relating to drivers' licenses, and designating said

chapter as reserved.

SECTION 4.

This Act shall become effective upon its approval by the Governor or upon its